Banning Books?

by Bradley A. Smith - September 2nd, 2009 - New York Post

The government argues that it can [ban books] -- relying on a 1990 case, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, that upheld a state law banning corporate political spending, and McConnell v. FEC, the 2003 case that upheld the constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

In fact, at a remarkable oral argument in March, the government claimed that Austin and McConnell give it the authority to ban books containing even one line of advocacy for or against a political candidate, if (like most books) they [were] produced or distributed by a corporation.

In June, the high court announced that instead of deciding the narrower issue of "Hillary: The Movie," it would rehear the case to consider overruling Austin and McConnell.

In anticipation of the reargument, groups that support onerous campaign-finance restrictions have launched a series of hyperbolic attacks on corporate political speech.

The reality that liberals and socialists are totally opposed to free enterprise is pretty well established. If it were not - this single case would make the case. Every single group that is arguing in favor of government regulating what you can say are generally considered extreme left wing groups. They believe that anyone who says anything they disagree with should have their freedom to speak squelched.

They use technical groupings to accomplish this goal, limiting individuals for being "rich" and limiting free enterprise groups for being "corporations". The real goal is clear. If you believe that freedom on economic issues leads to individual freedom in society, they do not want you permitted to speak.